Previous Post
Next Post


Sgt. Patrick Hayes writes:

There has been talk that the only way Connecticut can enforce their new gun laws is by confiscation. Of course the State is saying they don’t intend to do that – just like all the anti-gun folks always say “Nobody is after your guns.” Should the Police enforce these laws? The short answer is NO. Of course I am biased. I can read the Constitution and I understand the meaning of “shall not be infringed.” And then there’s the fourth Amendment  . . .

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To go into a home to confiscate guns the police need a warrant. For that they need probable cause. The applications of those who filed late would be probable cause. Who is going to apply for those warrants? Chances are it would be the Connecticut State Police. They maintain the database. Will judges issue such warrants? Given the failed appeals in the court system, I wouldn’t bet against it.

So who is going to serve them?

Individual Chiefs and Sheriffs could refuse to enforce the gun control laws and those under them would be OK. Peace officers in CT would have to make a choice. Setting aside the question of their oath to the U.S. Constitution, they are required to enforce State law. To refuse to follow the orders of their bosses would mean the end of their careers. Their livelihood. Their ability to feed their families or provide for their old age.

County and local police may or may not want to get involved. After all, the only crime here is failing to register legally owned items. All things being equal, arresting otherwise law-abiding gun owners for owning an unregistered firearm would not make the local police popular in their communities. And serving warrants to “armed felons” is by far the most dangerous thing police officers do. Every one could lead to disaster.

Another issue: scope. I don’t have the exact numbers but some 50k guns and magazines were registered. Approximately 35k registration forms arrived late (those are the ones receiving the letters from the state). Another larger group (estimated at 100k+) did nothing; the State doesn’t know what they have. Again, the second group, the ones who filed late, are the only citizens realistically open to confiscation. The State knows what they have and where they live.

Will Connecticut issue 35k warrants? The State Police don’t have the resources. Of course, the State could decide to arrest some of the newly created Class D felons to make an example of them. As there is no amnesty for CT residents who failed to register their “assault rifles” and “high-capacity” ammunition magazines before the January 1 deadline, it’s hard to see the point of that extremely dangerous exercise. Other than good old-fashioned tyranny.

It is important to note the Governor Malloy and his liberals are eager to destroy the guns and magazines not registered. They could have easily created an amnesty period. I suspect an outright ban, like New York is next. One way or another, Connecticut will have to sort this out. The police there may be forced to make a choice. I know what I would do. Even so, I don’t envy their position.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • It makes for a nice daydream — a swift, bloodless coup that ends with the governor and his stooges booted out of office (or better, in jail) along with the entire state legislature, followed by a special election in which the people get the chance to think about what went wrong and take another stab at getting it right.

      There’s a university in Canada that recently fired its entire student government — all the candidates were running unopposed, and every single one of them lost to a write-in vote for “none of the above.” Sounds like a good option to me.

        • Me a jury member on a murder case for someone that resisted confiscation = instant not guilty vote.

        • If the penalty for treason is execution that means whoever confisctes any weapon is guilty of treason as the constitution supercedes state law. Since you are so willing it seems to execute people then does this apply to statepolice? My next question is are you willing to start a full fledged revolutionbecause that is what will undoubtedly will happen? If you are then may God have mercy on your soul, this is a fight the people will win make no mistake about it.
          Tom Armstrong

        • It’s good to know that after all you’ve been through, you still have your sense of humor, Tom.

      • Now now. There were a few on the right side of this in the legislature. I propose we keep them but can/ax/etc euphemism the rest.

  1. Wouldn’t a late file (and denial) be a violation of the 5th amendment? Or would an Allford-type plea help the case if it ends up in court?

    • the 5th is before you give evidence, the late application was your voluntary self-incriminating evidence.
      Wow isn’t that interesting, ones attempt to comply with a law turns into self-incrimination.

    • I also wonder if a late file actually provides probable cause for a warrant. If your application was denied because of tardiness, can the government then reasonably assume that you still hold the now-illegal weapons? If you made the effort to attempt to register them, would not the assumption be that you tried to follow the law, and having been denied, have now resorted to other means to stay legal – transported them out of state, rendered them inoperable, etc.

      • Likely SOME judges (Anti gun types) would issue a warrant based on the denial. It meets probable cause for a Search warrant, but just barely.
        A person signs a legal document saying he has X,Y & Z guns and magazines……He can’t register them. IF and Only IF he doesn’t return the form saying he complied with the law…THEN a warrant would be issued.

        • Are there other situations where “failure to deny noncompliance” is the PC for a search warrant of your private property?

          I’m kind of struggling with that logic.

          That could be a very dangerous door to open.

  2. I just wanna know if that is CT’s entry in the “Politically correct cop photo” contest. Not sure, but I think an Asian officer is missing.

  3. If the government takes away a possession that was previously legally owned are they not required to compensate you for your loss? I have a vague recollection of a TTAG article discussing this very issue (the government taking away our guns) that said something about the government having to pay for any firearms in a similar manner to how eminent domain works. Or am I missing something (like usual).

    • States and local governments try to get around the takings clause issue by “permitting” you to sell the offending item to someone outside the jurisdiction before the prohibition comes into effect.

    • I don’t think so.

      Once they have determined you have violated the CT law by possessing a “large capacity” magazine, for example, you are a criminal. As a criminal your weapons are illegal and can, therefore, be confiscated without compensation.

      I doubt very much that if the cops arrest an armed robber they return the gun or pay him for his loss.

  4. Should they? No. Obviously.

    Will they? That’s a very different question.

    I think they will…just one or two at a time, no armed raids needed. No world-shattering decisions necessary; there’ll be no rounding up herds of suspects; just enforce the law when you see a violation. Their egregious law will be enforced selectively over time. If the it doesn’t get repealed or overturned in court, they’ll get their desired result — 10 to 20 years from now.

  5. One minor issue with this one: “To go into a home to confiscate guns the police need a warrant.”

    No they don’t. They need a mistake. Oops sorry we went to the wrong house and barged in. Well, our bad, but since we’re here… Happens every day.

  6. I would like to see the lawsuits filed by cops who get fired because they refused to violate the US Constitution. Can law enforcement agencies afford that kind of litigation, especially if the media gets involved?

  7. again, the police need to think about their own families. I know the cops my neighborhood and I presume the people in CT know where their police officer neighbors live as well. if this goes down, it would suck to have your pretty young wife and small children “stuck” behind enemy lines, now wouldn’t it? No – while there will be some gung ho rambo types, I suspect the police will decide that they would rather protect their loved ones than risk the blowback from a civil insurrection.

  8. I’m not so sure that the filing of an application rises to the level of probable cause. I actually don’t think it even rises to reasonable suspicion. Something that I do believe will happen is, this law will be tested by at least one member of law enforcement within CT and when it happens, there will be a lengthy and highly publicized series of hearings.

  9. I have been told by more than one LEO on firearms forums that it is their job to do what they are told, not to debate the constitutionality of any order, and that if we don’t like the laws, to get them changed, but don’t depend on law enforcement to do your work for you. After all, they have to get a paycheck, feed their kids, and pay their mortgage, too.

  10. Why even bother to ask if cops in blue states will carry out such orders? Of course they will. The only question is, on what scale? I’m surprised it’s not happening in New Jersey first. Very few pro-liberty, pro-gun, pro-2A cops here. Their Nazi-styled uniforms don’t help.

  11. Lets see:

    Option 1: Honor my oath, refuse the order and maybe get fired or maybe lose my pension. (Because you know the unions would have a lot to say about that)


    Option 2: Reject my oath, obey the order, maybe take a bullet to the face.

    Seems to me option 1 is the smart choice for CT LEO’s. Because selling out the constitution, your word, and your fellow citizens for the pension they paid for would pretty much may you the biggest douche on the planet. Oh and doesn’t include death or dismemberment at one of the potential side effects.

  12. CT will, if it comes to that use plausible deniability and contract out,……

    DHS Agents, remember Obama wanted a civilian police force that rivaled the military. He got it, and CT just may hire them to enforce it.

  13. In my younger days I would have said the police should be neutrally enforcing the law. If the time comes that their concsience’s can’t abide by enforcing the law- they should quit. Let the courts work out whether laws are constitutional. Each officer decideng what they will or won’t enforce and eventually we descend into lawlessness.

    But now, we have states and the federal government ignoring laws on a massive scale- immigration laws, drug laws. Sanctuary cities, refusing to deport, not allowing officers to follow up on suspicious activity, state laws contradicting federal laws and states allowing citizens to go to jail vice taking repsonsibility for the contradictions the politicians set up, regulations in contradiction to the law, AGs for states refusing to defend their states’ laws in the appeals courts, executive orders in direct contradiction of the law, etc. etc. We’re already on the road to lawlessness- why shouldn’t the local LEOs join in, everybody else in the government is playing the game already.

    • “Each officer decideng what they will or won’t enforce and eventually we descend into lawlessness.”

      I’ll rewrite that slightly:
      Each officer blindly enforcing every law and eventually we descend into tyranny.

    • “Each officer decideng what they will or won’t enforce and eventually we descend into lawlessness.”

      We already have that: officer discretion.

      The problem arises when all officers blindly enforce all laws.

      Every citizen has the duty to civil disobedience in the face of unconstitutional laws. Cops are citizens; they have that duty as well, and enforcement discretion is a powerful tool in that arena.

      There are all manners of laws on the books that are not enforced at all.

      Some of these are funny and of less serious consequences, such as

      but the concept holds.

      Also, some with more serious consequences:

      For example, statutory rape for someone not wearing socks in a car? How many cops are enforcing that?

      So, I submit that each and every day, cops (all cops) exercise discretion … as it should be.

      • I agree JR

        I have a huge amount of discretion and often unpopular laws are generally ignored by cops. It is never officially discussed….just nobody enforces it. Usually in a couple of years they change the law.
        Very often it deals with the fine or penalty being too high. The good folks in the Capitol don’t have to give folks tickets for the laws they pass. I have seen insane fines for minor infractions. That is when alot of folks get warnings instead.

        This is different because we are talking about search warrants. Harder to refuse and keep your job.

  14. If I was one of those whose late form placed them at risk, or just about anyone else in CT with an unregistered weapon, I would arrange a very discrete hiding place; when they came looking, I would tell them I destroyed the firearm.

  15. Remember that the governor can always declare martial law, and call out the National Guard, especially if a few police officers get shot for enforcing this law. That would be the worst case scenerio and one I hope I don’t live to see.

    • Yes. The police don’t pro-actively seek out folks to enforce the law, they simply enforce it as they come across folks violating the law- one more thing to charge them with while investigating them/coming in contact with them for something else. I’m sorry Mr./Ms. XXXXX, but when I ran your license it came up that you have an unresolved assault weapon issue. I’ll need to take you in…
      I’m sorry Mr./Ms. XXXX, when we recovered your stolen car/investigating the break in to your residence we came across these magazines…
      Mr./Ms. XXXXX we received a sworn statement from your ex alleging that you have …… and we have a search warrant…..

      As for the folks who attempted to register but weren’t in time. The state doesn’t send folks to them, they simply refuse to re-register their cars, or licenses or other perform other government functions for them until the citizen comes in and resolves the matter – a statement swearing they got rid of the weapon or turn it in or whatever.

    • Sure, if the police simply enforce these things as they come across them in the course of other business/investigations. Traffic tickets, responding to emergency calls etc.

      Don’t go after the folks who applied too late. Simply refuse to perform the routine government functions of things like drivers license renewal, car registration renewal, hold up tax refunds (do they have income tax in CT?) until those folks resolve the issue. Sworn statement they’ve gotten rid of the weapons etc.

      One at a time, gradually, no large scale confrontation or invasion/raids of individuals.

    • I do…..and it’s so simple…but I doubt that idiot Malloy will do it.

      The Governor can “Suspend” the law for “Review”.
      Then they can quietly repeal it. Perfect.

  16. CT knows about a lot more than just the late forms. CT collects a state level form (DPS-3) on any purchase through a dealer in CT. I’m not sure when it went into effect, but it’s been around for many years. Unlike the feds, it sounds like they kept all those forms.

    So, they can look up any guns sold with the DPS-3 and see which are considered assault weapons. Before the deadline with the new laws, you could request from the CT police what they know about, and what needs to be registered.

    That being said, they don’t know about out-of-state purchase, people moving, or person-to-person sales that weren’t registered.

  17. It would be interesting if some LEO’s appealed the constitutionality of these laws to protect themselves down the road from having their own version of a Nuremburg (I was just following orders as I was violating gun owners rights) trial.

  18. I wonder, given their current situation as pending felons, how many of the 35K are busy packing and looking for jobs out of state?

  19. State police will be drafted as the new SS Einsatzgruppen as America succumbs to inevitable dictatorship. A rabble rousing mentally unbalanced demogogue issues unwritten tacit orders to his party underlings and radical new edicts are enforced by the states jack booted thugs without question or hesitation. Ring a bell?

    The round up of Japanese Americans during WW2 could easily occur again, with “illegally armed domestic terrorists” as the new “other.”

    Every radical demogogue needs a subversive enemy, an “other” to blame for perceived problems and to rally their base against, “bitter clingers” fill this role nicely as the Communist takeover of America continues unabated.

  20. I feel bad for the good Law Officers in that state. Sure there are some jerks I am sure, who are chomping at the bit, and I am sure many are just scared. They became officers for a reason. Losing their careers over a politicians stupidity is beyond me. I really hope departments and associations stand up and say no we wont comply. they can either fire the department en mass, or not.
    The officers want to go home to their families like everyone else. If you think about it.
    Let’s use the 35,000 number. Let’s say 3% decide to not go quietly. That is 1,050. Let’s say out of those 70% actually take a law officer with them when they go. That is 735 funerals Governor Malloy will have on his hands. There are only around 6,700 local police in the state. State troopers fill in the rest, but even still that is not many resources. Only a fraction of them are trained for high risk search warrants.
    At what point will the police unions bust down Malloy’s door and ask him to stop the madness?

    • Heck, even one fatal encounter is one too many. Even at 1/2 of one percent that would still be 105 shootouts.

      As I said in a previous thread, the government will not seek enforcement. They have already won. They are right to assume that the illegal firearms in the hands of otherwise law abiding citizens will never again see the light of day in any kind of public venue, rendering them neutered. Same as owning an unregistered WWII era auto Thompson. You’ll never see one of those at the range.

  21. Sgt. Patrick Hayes wrote: “To refuse to follow the orders of their bosses would mean the end of their careers. Their livelihood. Their ability to feed their families or provide for their old age.”

    To follow those orders could cost participating officers all those things.

    Ditto for their spouses and children who are at home while they are out killing dogs and jack-booting gun owners.

    If you think for a minute that savvy gun owners are going to wait to take on a SWAT team head on, you’re a fool.

    They’re instead going to cut open the soft underbelly.

    The question is: How many CT police are going to kick in doors after a few of them come home to find their family members have gone through a wood chipper while they were “at work”?

    Revolution is a dirty, nasty affair.

    Hopefully the “LEOs” in CT will follow their oath.

    • You are nuts if you think a righteout revolution can be won like that. Targeting non-combatants only infuriates more people into becoming combatants against your cause. Creating enemies faster than you can kill them is a losing strategy.

      Anyone who has no qualms about killing women and children is fvcking psycho!

  22. My two predictions:

    1. There will be few, if any people charged for this and nothing else. Meaning: If the police are at your house on a domestic call and see your unregistered Magpul 30 rounder, you will be charged with both cases. If the police are at your house because you called after a burglary and see your unregistered Magpul 30 rounder, you will get a talking to, or the cop will make you “pour your beer out” and warn you “don’t let me see you again with this.”

    2. If perchance one of these “stand alone” cases makes it to a prosecutor, it will be litigated with all of the gusto that AUSAs prosecute straw buyers unearthed by ATF. “Look, tell your client to pay court costs and 10 hours of community service and I’ll dismiss.”

    Politicians are not in the solutions business, they are not in the implementation business, they are not in the follow-through business… They are in the “pass laws and campaign” business. They literally could not care less if one person is arrested or prosecuted as long as voters keep quiet and allow them to take credit for making people safer.

    • I don’t know about your “pour your beer out” scenario. Some cops in NY had no problem jamming people up for having > 7 rounds.

  23. If the NJ magazine reduction legislation passes, the state would be able to determine who owns pistols capable of having 15 round magazines from the purchase permits. There is no Grandfather clause in this bill and the “experts” in our legislature think all these firearms will accept 10 round magazines. Guess what? a lot don’t. Obviously, most owners won’t comply with getting rid of their 15 round magazines. It will be interesting to see if the state will attempt to confiscate the thousands of magazines in the state.

  24. Option 3-

    Knock knock

    “Hello sir, before you react let me explain what is going to happen.I searched your residence and found nothing. Have a super day”

    • Love it! That is real policing right there. On prom night in 1989, I got caught at 3 am making out with my girlfriend at a private park (HOA owned). The police could have:

      a) Arrested me and my girlfriend for curfew and criminal trespass
      b) Taken me home and humiliated me in front of my parents
      c) Lectured me and warned me in no uncertain terms what would happen if I was not back home in the next 10 minutes

      They picked c — thankfully. The only thing that will stop the over criminalization of our society is guys and girls with badges exercising common sense. Just like the security guards in my high school let me slide for being late for class because they knew I was an honors student, the police need to leave to otherwise law-abiding alone when it comes to stuff like this…

    • problem… we aren’t CONVICTED felons with the simple passage of a law. We’re only liable to BECOME felons if caught.

  25. The problem is that the state hasn’t provided any mechanism for the 35k, or the other 100k, to say “okay fine, I’ll register.” Their position, restated several times on record now, is that those people “have to take the consequences” of having missed the deadline.

    Unless they do something about that, they can’t ‘send a message’ to gun owners by publicly arresting a few. They can ignore the whole issue, which is what will probably happen. Or they can launch some sort of large-scale crackdown, which will certainly result in violence.

    The real lesson from CT and NY is that you need to use your brain when you’re writing a law, because not doing so actually can create serious problems in the real world. Of course some of us already knew that.

    • The government can simply ignore the law when it wants to, or the current politicians don’t like the law. Like the ACA or immigration laws. The politicians and their buddies are exempted from the law– from their world vie there are no serious problems with the law since they’re shielded from the laws effects.

      • That’s true for as long as it lasts. When the government goes rogue, it always does so at peril of the people waking up and reasserting the rule of law. It still wasn’t that long ago that malfeasance in office meant jailtime, even for the President. It’s not the CT gun owners who are trying something new here, it’s the government. And they may very well have picked ground that the people are willing to fight on.

  26. The cops don’t have to confiscate door to door. It is now illegal. They are not coming for them but when for some reason they have a need to be in your house or your car and they find them you will be prosecuted and then lose all your rights to any firearm. If you use your gun for protection you will be arrested because you have an illegal magazine or rifle. You can’t take the rifle or magazine to the range without risking getting caught. They have made that rifle or magazine obsolete due to the fact you can’t use it even if there is a good cause. The gov’t will win by contrition. They do nothing and they win.

  27. They wouldn’t have to go very far to find a judge who would sign the warrants (possibly while vigorously pleasuring himself with his free hand).

  28. I feel really bad for state and city law enforcement.local militias are already putting their gear together across the United States, I fear its state government doesn’t play their cards right this could very well be the beginning of the most bloodiest Civil War in history! as a disabled 82nd Airborne Ranger from Fort Bragg now living in Florida, I protect the worst!

  29. Both police officers and prosecutors have the position of “ministerial officers” before the law. In other words, they have discretion as to what crimes they will and will not prosecute. This why the traffic cop can “let you off with a warning.”, or a prosecutor can arrange a plea bargain. Just because a law says so, a law enforcement official does not have to enforce it.

  30. Without even reading the article, I have one simple question for law enforcement officers:

    If a state law declared unregistered pillows to be contraband, would you forcibly go into homes to confiscate unregistered pillows and send the pillow owners to prison for five years?

    We must NEVER lose sight of WHY we have laws. Moral and just laws declare the inherent dignity of human life. Any law that denies the dignity of a human being is neither moral nor just and we must never, in any capacity, support such a law.

    How often and in what manner a husband and wife are intimate is absolutely, positively, no ifs, ands, or buts, beyond the purview of government. How many and what kinds of pillows someone has is absolutely, positively, no ifs, ands, or buts, beyond the purview of government. Similarly, how many and what kinds of firearms someone has is absolutely, positively, no ifs, ands, or buts, beyond the purview of government. Anyone who says differently is denying the basic, inherent, unalienable dignity of human beings. They are a scourge to their fellow man.

  31. From the article,
    “Setting aside the question of their oath to the U.S. Constitution, they are required to enforce State law.”

    And here is the inherent problem. There is never any moral, just reason for law enforcement officers to set aside their oath to the U.S. Constitution because THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!!!!!!

    When the law of government violates the U.S. Constitution, that law is null and void as if it had never existed at all. There is absolutely no conflict or paradox whatsoever. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

  32. And then we have this gem from the article,
    Regarding police officers … “To refuse to follow the orders of their [police] bosses would mean the end of their careers. Their livelihood. Their ability to feed their families or provide for their old age.”

    And law enforcement officers who arrest good people for owning a chunk of metal, wood, and plastic will mean the end of those good people’s careers. Their livelihood. Their ability to feed their families or provide for their old age.

    I hope everyone sees the ginormous problem with that worldview. In case you don’t, I’ll spell it out for you. Law enforcement officers justify ruining good people’s lives because cops don’t want to lose their livelihood — morality and justice be dammed. (I will ignore the fact that they can provide for themselves, their family, and their retirement in alternate professions and businesses.) And good people should not apply the same standard and treat cops the same way because …… why?????

    No one begrudges police officers who capture murderers, rapists, thieves, and violent abusers. In fact I would dare say we all appreciate those efforts. But police must NEVER arrest good people under threat of deadly force and ruin their lives because police officers are concerned about their next paycheck. If your police bosses ask you to ruin the lives of good people, your only honorable, moral, and just option is to immediately resign, period. Any other course of action is immoral, dishonorable, and unjust.

    • I think I would weigh the options.Livelihood on one hand and plain old life on the other.Weigh in over, I would not be a very obedient police officer to the state.
      It might be my life ruined .Literally.

  33. Where are you getting the 35k number? That’s several orders of magnitude more than I’ve heard before. I found this in a quick search:

    Under the decision, the department will accept certification forms for 160 rifles and 398 magazines which were notarized by Jan. 1 and postmarked by Jan. 4. The state received about 226 assault weapon applications and 506 high-capacity magazine declarations received by the state were postmarked shortly after the deadline.

    If that author’s numbers are right, that means 66 “assault weapon” owners and 108 hi-cap owners, for a total of 174 denied late applicants, assuming there’s no overlap on the lists.

  34. I’m a bit surprised that many, especially LEOs, haven’t brought up
    the pressure this is going to put on the justice system. How many
    hardened criminals are roaming free because of overcrowding,
    low bails on serious charges, ludicrously low sentencing, or simply
    because a judge or DA can’t be bothered to arraigned someone
    on time?

    LE depts should simply state that they’ll worry about the brand
    new mass of class D felons AFTER all the A,B, and C felons are
    taken care of. Then, if forced to take action, begin with every single
    person on the state payroll.

  35. Sadly, the residents of the former Constitution state voted the Office of Sheriff out of existence in 2000.No constitutional officers’ to act as a buffer to tyranny.

  36. The constitution is being stepped all over, we know it starts at the top. for the last four years we have seen this all to often . What happened to CT. and and all others is unspeakable ,but common sense must prevail , we can not continue to see this country go on that slippery slope . This is a great country. Make your vote count,

  37. It is unthinkable to put Peace Officers in this position. Criminals want to get away…not the case with people taking a stand against tyranny.

  38. Not sure about the “they can never use those [unregistered] guns in public” thing. Since it’s apparently legal to have and use them as long as it’s registered, and since there is no visual difference between a registered and an unregistered gun or mag, how is someone to know if the gun you are using is illegal? Unless the very sight of one is deemed to be “reasonable suspicion” that you are commiting a crime, the cops wouldn’t even have grounds to stop you to ask, “Is that mag registered?”

  39. Are They Not Sworn To Uphold The Constitution Of These United States Of America??? I Say If They Do Not Uphold The law…They Should Be Tried For Treason…Plain And Simple…JMHO

  40. I am a police officer and would refuse to enforce these unconstitutional laws. I am in Colorado and refuse to enforce our new unconstitutional laws. Screw the liberals.

  41. Since when have laws been applicable, much less enforced upon the law enforcement community? They routinely get away with:

    Trampling our Rights defined in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments(to name a few)
    Willful destruction of private property
    False arrest
    Fraud and larceny under the color of law
    Perjury, false statements, and omission of contradictory evidence in courts of law
    Assault, rape, manslaughter, even murder

    All without consequence, or at worst – with paid vacation aka “administrative leave” – under the guise of “following procedures”

  42. I thought registration was something you force someone to do “after” they have committed a crime, like a sex offender.

  43. One other wrinkle for the officers who might (hypothetically) want to enforce this law: The qualified immunity against “1983 actions” (Federal lawsuits for civil rights violations) that law enforcement officers generally enjoy can be lost if the officers’ actions represent a violation of what the courts deem a “clearly established” Constitutional right. There are all sorts of technical details in what constitutes “clearly established”, but if I was a cop I’m not sure I’d want to roll those dice, especially if I might be a named defendant in the ensuing lawsuit.

  44. What if they decide to throw the National Guard into the mix. I can see King Obama and his bunch trying it. Then this would get real messy I think.

  45. That’s true, but the NG is made up of citizens that they themselves might just be gun owners and believe in gun rights.

    The potential for “mess” is very high. But the path of the future is not clear.

  46. Are we to believe that registering something makes the public safer whereas not registering it, even a few days late, makes it harmful to peace?
    The 50K that filled out the forms should box their toys up and have them by the door so the team doesn’t need to tear up the house looking for them when they show up.

  47. Governor Malloy IS NUTS! I mean ‘certifiably insane’!! It is inconceivable the position this man is putting CTs OWN STATE POLICE & enforcement in! ABSOLUTELY INCONCEIVABLE!!! This man is a raving lune right up there with HITLER himself!!

    The State Police ‘MUST’ CAPITULATE, organize and go arrest, try this man before he causes irreparable & inconceivable American history!! “MUST” – not perhaps!!! THIS IS A MAN THAT IS OBVIOUSLY … ‘ARMED-&-DANGEROUS’!!!!!!!!!!!!

    WOW. : /

  48. The lies became the Law, and now the Law has itself become a lie. Put another way, Governor Malloy’s trophy — i.e. Public Act 13-220 — isn’t hanging on his wall; it’s running loose IN his wall and has eluded him.

    Even the Hartford Courant – no great fan of the pro-gun crowd — estimates that between 20,000 and 100,000 Connecticut residents failed to apply for assault weapon certificates on their 50,000 to 350,000 legally-purchased long guns that were re-categorized as ‘assault weapons’ per Public Acts 13-3 and 13-220.

    Although the DESPP developed and has maintained a firearm purchase database since the mid-1990’s, the principal reason why State and local Law Enforcement cannot enforce Public Act 13-220 is that they cannot conclusively determine whether or not any Connecticut resident recorded as having purchased a long gun (re-categorized as an ‘assault weapon’ on April 4, 2013) still owns it if he hasn’t applied for a ‘Certificate of Possession of Assault Weapon(s).’

    Prior to April 4, 2013, the legal owner of any long gun (including long guns since re-categorized as ‘assault weapons’) could legally sell or otherwise transfer that long gun to any adult, law-abiding Connecticut resident without formal paperwork, and without notifying the DESPP that the sale / transfer had taken place. Further, the seller of a long gun cannot be compelled to produce record of such sale / transfer unless the long gun has been recovered from having been used in the commission of a crime, and traced to the seller’s identity. This provision of Connecticut law prior to April 4, 2013 renders the DESPP’s firearm purchase database useless as a de facto database of current long gun and ‘assault weapon’ ownership.

    Another reason why the DESPP’s firearm purchase database is useless to conclusively identify and arrest offenders of Public Act 13-220 is much simpler. Legal owners of long guns re-categorized as ‘assault weapons’ could comply with Public Act 13-220 by removing them from the State to store elsewhere before January 1, 2014.

    Imagine a man becoming a suspect of violating Public Act 13-220 on the sole basis of the DESPP’s firearm purchase database, indicating that the suspect legally purchased one or more long guns now re-categorized as an ‘assault weapon(s).’ What could State and/or local Law Enforcement legally do to discover the unregistered ‘assault weapon’ needed to prosecute him?

    Answer: NOTHING. No judge would issue a search warrant on that basis alone, especially considering the completely legal reasons cited above as to how the suspect likely complied with Public Act 13-220 in a manner other than having applied for an ‘assault weapon’ certificate.

    The legal peril on part of Connecticut citizens stems from a sense of ‘creativity’ to which Law Enforcement personnel are notorious. That is, some State Troopers and some local police officers are inclined to interpret the law in whatever way is expeditious to their objective. My own legal counsel cautions that should Governor Malloy task State and/or local Law Enforcement with active enforcement of Public Act 13-220, they may be initially inclined to cite a suspect’s having purchased a long gun now re-categorized as an ‘assault weapon’ in the DESPP’s firearm purchase database as ‘probable cause’ that the suspect has likely violated Public Act 13-220, and thereby search the suspect’s home without a warrant. Though such a search would be eventually adjudicated as illegal, the homeowner could incur an arrest on his criminal record, and see his home made unliveable due to damage connected with a search for ‘assault weapons’ that he either no longer owns or removed from the state. Meanwhile, Law Enforcement personnel responsible for conducting the illegal search, false arrest, and home damage face no legal peril at all, dismissing their illegal search as just a part of what the courts will have to sort out.

    Beyond legal peril, think of the subsequent physical danger to which Law Enforcement personnel and homeowners would be subjected should an illegal search such as that described in the previous paragraph ever come to pass and be publicized. Deadly violence connected with subsequent illegal searches might be unavoidable.

    But perhaps violence can be averted after all, considering what I just stumbled upon. According to, ” … just over 68% of Connecticut cops had failed to register firearms according to the new law.” See ‘Connecticut halts plans to round up firearms after finding most cops in the state are on the list.’

    It’s gonna get weird, folks.

    ‘Regards to all.

  49. Any officer who is also an Oath Keeper will refuse to disarm any American Citizen… . So these people are our best friends… look them up, join, give them money and pray…. maybe this is time to re-examine your lives to see what relationship if any you have with the Jewish Messiah Y’Shua HaMashiach… Jesus Christ… events are accelerating quickly now and it seems so much are in direct fulfillment of our Bible… Don’t gamble your eternal futures.

  50. Let us prepare ourselves, AMERICA…
    They ARE coming for OUR (ARMS)…
    Prepare, Mentally, Emotionally, AND Physically…
    BE STRONG!!!
    And BE NOT AFRAID!!!
    (Beith not offended diligent police officers.. BE STRONG) the reference only includes YOU; IF YOU THINK, YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE MY GOD GIVIN RIGHT, TO DEFEND MY FAMILY FROM TYRANNY!!!

  51. Here is a radical idea, hack Gov. and antigun supporters. Do a sting by offering cash for any illegal act. Send couple of hookers with web cameras to visit.

    Use a little creativity first to attack. Tee shirts are fun. A rally at his home, his neighbors will love it.
    Use you brains. Have fun.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here